(A)
Exhibits. The Parties exchanged exhibit lists on
April 2, 2018. The Parties have agreed to exchange final
exhibit lists, with objections, on May 2, 2018. The Court
approved the Parties' agreement on exhibits by telephone
on April 23, 2018. Farmobile is working on a revised Exhibit
List but is not sure when that revised List will be done.
Depending on when it is done, Plaintiffs may end up serving
objections to the Original Exhibit List that was served by
Defendants on April 2, 2018.

Caution: Upon express approval of the judge holding
the pretrial conference for good cause shown, the parties may
be authorized to defer listing of exhibits or objections
until a later date to be specified by the judge holding the
pretrial conference. The mere listing of an exhibit on an
exhibit list by a party does not mean it can be offered into
evidence by the adverse party without all necessary
evidentiary prerequisites being met.

(B)
Uncontroverted Facts. The parties have agreed that
the following may be accepted as established facts for
purposes of this case only:

[State
in detail all uncontroverted facts, including those which are
to be stipulated, in such form that the statement may be read
to the jury.]

Plaintiffs
state uncontroverted facts that could be read to the jury as
follows:

1. Crop
Ventures, Inc. was a Nebraska Corporation.

2. Crop
Ventures, Inc. was the predecessor in interest to Plaintiffs.

3.
Farmobile LLC is a Limited Liability Company.

Plaintiffs
object to the Defendants' proposal regarding
uncontroverted facts because it mischaracterizes the Summary
Judgment briefing (which speaks for itself and does not need
to be repeated here) and the effect of that briefing.

Farmobile
states that there are no disputed issues of material fact, as
set forth in Farmobile's Brief in Support of Motion for
Summary Judgment (filing no. 278), Brief in Opposition to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (filing no. 290),
and Reply Brief in Support of [Farmobile's] Motion for
Summary Judgment (filing no. 305).

Farmobile
states that Plaintiffs have admitted the following statements
of facts contained in filing no. 278, without any
qualification. These facts are therefore uncontroverted and
may be read to the jury in the form set forth in filing no.
278:

Farmobile
states that Plaintiffs have also admitted the following
statements of facts contained in filing no. 278, due to
improper objections, or due to their failure to comply with
the Court's local rules. These facts are therefore also
uncontroverted and may be read to the jury in the form set
forth in filing no. 278:

(C)
Controverted and Unresolved Issues. The issues
remaining to be determined and unresolved matters for the
court's attention are:

[List
all legal issues remaining to be determined, setting out in
detail each element of the claim or defense which is
genuinely controverted (including issues on the merits and
issues of jurisdiction, venue, joinder, validity of
appointment of a representative of a party, class action,
substitution of parties, attorney's fee and applicable
law under which it is claimed, and prejudgment interest).
Specify any special damages or permanent injuries claimed. In
any negligence action, specify elements of negligence and
contributory negligence, if any. Any other unresolved matters
requiring the court's attention, such as possible
consolidation for trial, bifurcated trials on specified
issues, and pending motions, shall also be listed.]

Controverted
and Unresolved Issues. The issues remaining to be
determined and unresolved matters for the Court's
attention are:

The
Parties were not able to agree on the presentation of the
issues remaining to be determined and unresolved matters for
the Court's attention. Plaintiffs' proposed statement
is followed by Defendants' proposed statement.

a.
Whether the claimed trade secrets (as described more
completely in the two reports from Aaron Ault) satisfy the
statutory definition of trade secrets that covers information
(including, but not limited to, a drawing, formula, pattern,
compilation, program, device, method, technique, code, or
process) that:

(a)
Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from
not being known to, and not being ascertainable by proper
means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from
its disclosure or use; and

(b) Is
the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the
circumstances to maintain its secrecy; b. If so, whether the
Defendants' conduct satisfied the statutory definition of
misappropriation, which covers:

i.
Acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person (as
defined in the statute to include without limitation natural
persons, corporations, limited liability companies, and any
other legal or commercial entity) who knows or has reason to
know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means (as
defined by the statute to mean theft, bribery,
misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty
to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other
means); or

ii.
Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without
express or implied consent by a person who:

1. Used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade
secret;

2. At the time of the disclosure or use, knew or had reason
to know that his or her knowledge of the trade secret was:

a. Derived from or through a person who had utilized improper
means to acquire it;

b. Acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to
maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or

c. Derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the
person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its
use; or

d. Before a material change of his or her position, knew or
had reason to know that the information was a trade secret
and that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or
mistake;

c. Whether it is proper to enter an injunction under the
Nebraska Uniform Trade Secrets Act to prevent future
misappropriation;

d. Whether an injunction should condition future use upon
payment of a reasonable royalty;

e. Whether damages in the form of a reasonable royalty in the
amount of $1.25 to $2.5 million as set forth more fully in
the expert report of Andrew Carter should be awarded.

2.
Whether the individual Defendants Tatge, Nuss and Heath
Gerlock are liable for breach of express and implied
contract.

a.
Whether they breached express written contractual provisions.

b.
Whether they breached implied contractual obligations
including obligations to assign patent interests under the
hired to invent doctrine or otherwise.

c. If
so, whether an injunction should be entered requiring
Defendants to assign Defendants' entire right, title and
interest in the Farmobile Canadian Patent No. CA 2888742C
(the “Canadian Patent”) at issue and the allowed
U.S. Non-Provisional Patent Application No. 14/434, 621
published as U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0234767A1 (the
“allowed U.S. patent application”) that Farmobile
abandoned that is at issue (and all parent patent
applications thereof and all patent applications or issued
patents claiming priority thereto including International
Patent Application No. PCT/US2014/056818 (the “PCT
Application”) at issue and the U.S. Provisional Patent
Application Nos. 61/881, 320 and 61/881, 326 (the
“Provisional Patent Applications”) filed by
Farmobile in September 2013 to Plaintiffs.

d. If
the obligations were breached, whether an injunction should
be entered prohibiting the Defendants from using confidential
information that they took from Crop Ventures.

3.
Whether the individual Defendants breached duties of good
faith and fair dealing.

a. If
they violated their duties of good faith and fair dealing,
whether an injunction should be entered requiring Defendants
to assign Defendants' entire right, title and interest in
the Farmobile Canadian Patent No. CA 2888742C (the
“Canadian Patent”) at issue and the allowed U.S.
Non-Provisional Patent Application No. 14/434, 621 published
as U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0234767A1 (the
“allowed U.S. patent application”) that Farmobile
abandoned that is at issue (and all parent patent
applications thereof and all patent applications or issued
patents claiming priority thereto including International
Patent Application No. PCT/US2014/056818 (the “PCT
Application”) at issue and the U.S. Provisional Patent
Application Nos. 61/881, 320 and 61/881, 326 (the
“Provisional Patent Applications”) filed by
Farmobile in September 2013 to Plaintiffs.

b. If
the obligations were breached, whether an injunction should
be entered prohibiting the Defendants from using confidential
information that they took from Crop Ventures.

4.
Whether the individual Defendants Tatge, Nuss, and Heath
Gerlock are liable for breach of fiduciary duty and duty of
loyalty.

a.
Whether the Defendants used confidential information peculiar
to Crop Ventures' business for their own purposes while
employed by Crop Ventures.

b.
Whether the duty of loyalty extends after an employee quits a
business.

c. If
so, whether the Defendants used confidential information for
Defendants' purposes after leaving Crop Ventures.

d. If
so, whether they used that confidential information as part
of the provisional patent applications filed in September
2013 to which the Canadian Patent at issue and the abandoned
but allowed U.S. Patent Application at issue both claim
priority.

e. If
so, whether an injunction should be entered requiring
Defendants to assign Defendants' entire right, title and
interest in the Farmobile Canadian Patent No. CA 2888742C
(the “Canadian Patent”) at issue and the allowed
U.S. Non-Provisional Patent Application No. 14/434, 621
published as U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0234767A1 (the
“allowed U.S. patent application”) that Farmobile
abandoned that is at issue (and all parent patent
applications thereof and all patent applications or issued
patents claiming priority thereto including International
Patent Application No. PCT/US2014/056818 (the “PCT
Application”) at issue and the U.S. Provisional Patent
Application Nos. 61/881, 320 and 61/881, 326 (the
“Provisional Patent Applications”) filed by
Farmobile in September 2013 to Plaintiffs.

f. If
the obligations were breached, whether an injunction should
be entered prohibiting the Defendants from using confidential
information that they took from Crop Ventures.

5.
Whether the Defendants are liable for conversion.

a.
Whether Defendants exerted any wrongful act of dominion over
the property of Plaintiffs which deprived the owner of its
property permanently or for an indefinite period of time.

b.
Whether the applicable test is the modern approach followed
in the Court's ruling on the motions to dismiss or the
older approach advocated by Defendants.

c. If
Defendants committed conversion, whether an injunction should
be entered requiring Defendants to assign Defendants'
entire right, title and interest in the Farmobile Canadian
Patent No. CA 2888742C (the “Canadian Patent”) at
issue and the allowed U.S. Non-Provisional Patent Application
No. 14/434, 621 published as U.S. Patent Publication No.
2015/0234767A1 (the “allowed U.S. patent
application”) that Farmobile abandoned that is at issue
(and all parent patent applications thereof and all patent
applications or issued patents claiming priority thereto
including International Patent Application No.
PCT/US2014/056818 (the “PCT Application”) at
issue and the U.S. Provisional Patent Application Nos.
61/881, 320 and 61/881, 326 (the “Provisional Patent
Applications”) filed by Farmobile in September 2013 to
Plaintiffs.

d. If
Defendants committed conversion, whether an injunction should
be entered prohibiting the Defendants from using confidential
information that they took from Crop Ventures.

6.
Whether the Defendants are liable for trespass to chattels.

a.
Whether Defendants dispossessed Plaintiffs of a chattel
consisting of Plaintiffs' property rights in the
Farmobile Canadian Patent No. CA 2888742C (the
“Canadian Patent”) at issue and the allowed U.S.
Non-Provisional Patent Application No. 14/434, 621 published
as U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0234767A1 (the
“allowed U.S. patent application”) that Farmobile
abandoned that is at issue (and all parent patent
applications thereof and all patent applications or issued
patents claiming priority thereto including International
Patent Application No. PCT/US2014/056818 (the “PCT
Application”) at issue and the U.S. Provisional Patent
Application Nos. 61/881, 320 and 61/881, 326 (the
“Provisional Patent Applications”) filed by
Farmobile in September 2013, as well as in confidential
information from Crop Ventures;

b.
Whether the chattels' value to Plaintiffs was impaired as
to its condition, quality, or value;

c.
Whether the Plaintiffs are deprived of the use of the chattel
for a substantial time;

d. Or
harm is caused to some person or thing in which the possessor
has a legally protected interest.

e.
Whether the applicable test is the modern approach followed
in the Court's ruling on the motions to dismiss or the
older approach advocated by Defendants.

f. If
Defendants committed trespass to chattels, whether an
injunction should be entered requiring Defendants to assign
Defendants' entire right, title and interest in the
Farmobile Canadian Patent No. CA 2888742C (the
“Canadian Patent”) at issue and the allowed U.S.
Non-Provisional Patent Application No. 14/434, 621 published
as U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0234767A1 (the
“allowed U.S. patent application”) that Farmobile
abandoned that is at issue (and all parent patent
applications thereof and all patent applications or issued
patents claiming priority thereto including International
Patent Application No. PCT/US2014/056818 (the “PCT
Application”) at issue and the U.S. Provisional Patent
Application Nos. 61/881, 320 and 61/881, 326 (the
“Provisional Patent Applications”) filed by
Farmobile in September 2013 to Plaintiffs.

g. If
Defendants committed trespass to chattels, whether an
injunction should be entered prohibiting the Defendants from
using confidential information that they took from Crop
Ventures.

a.
Whether the Defendants combined to accomplish by concerted
action an unlawful or oppressive object, or a lawful object
by oppressive means.

b. If
Defendants conspired, whether an injunction should be entered
requiring Defendants to assign Defendants' entire right,
title and interest in the Farmobile Canadian Patent No. CA
2888742C (the “Canadian Patent”) at issue and the
allowed U.S. Non-Provisional Patent Application No. 14/434,
621 published as U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0234767A1
(the “allowed U.S. patent application”) that
Farmobile abandoned that is at issue (and all parent patent
applications thereof and all patent applications or issued
patents claiming priority thereto including International
Patent Application No. PCT/US2014/056818 (the “PCT
Application”) at issue and the U.S. Provisional Patent
Application Nos. 61/881, 320 and 61/881, 326 (the
“Provisional Patent Applications”) filed by
Farmobile in September 2013 to Plaintiffs;

c. If
Defendants conspired, whether an injunction should be entered
prohibiting the Defendants from using confidential
information that they took from Crop Ventures;

b. If so, whether Defendants gave any direction or authority
to act with the sole purpose of driving Crop Ventures out of
business;

c. If so, whether Crop Ventures was damaged in an amount of
at least $70, 000;

d. If so, whether Plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys'
fees;

10.
Whether the Defendants are liable for tortious interference
with a business contract or expectancy.

a. Whether Defendants interfered with a contractual
relationship between Crop Ventures and Ken Forster about
which they knew by making untrue statements;

b. Whether Defendants engaged in unjustified interference
with expectancies with Stephan Richter, DTN, CSS, and AGCO
that they knew existed between Crop Ventures and others;

c. If a or b are true proof that the interference proximately
caused harm in the form of damage to Plaintiffs.

d. If so, the amount of that damage, in an amount of at least
$70, 000.

11.
Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment
of ownership and if so, whether an injunction should be
entered requiring Defendants to assign Defendants' entire
right, title and interest in the Farmobile Canadian Patent
No. CA 2888742C (the “Canadian Patent”) at issue
and the allowed U.S. Non-Provisional Patent Application No.
14/434, 621 published as U.S. Patent Publication No.
2015/0234767A1 (the “allowed U.S. patent
application”) that Farmobile abandoned that is at issue
(and all parent patent applications thereof and all patent
applications or issued patents claiming priority thereto
including International Patent Application No.
PCT/US2014/056818 (the “PCT Application”) at
issue and the U.S. Provisional Patent Application Nos.
61/881, 320 and 61/881, 326 (the “Provisional Patent
Applications”) filed by Farmobile in September 2013 to
Plaintiffs.

i. the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep
such information secret; and

ii. the information derives independent economic value,
actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and
not being readily ascertainable through proper means by,
another person who can obtain economic value from the
disclosure or use of the information;

c. Whether after May 11, 2016, the Defendants engaged in acts
that fall within the scope of the statutory definition of
misappropriation that covers:

i.
acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who
knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was
acquired by improper means; or

ii.
disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without
express or implied consent by a person who-

1. used
improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret;

2. at
the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know
that the knowledge of the trade secret was-

a.
derived from or through a person who had used improper means
to acquire the trade secret;

b.
acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to
maintain the secrecy of the trade secret or limit the use of
the trade secret; or

c.
derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the
person seeking relief to maintain the secrecy of the trade
secret or limit the use of the trade secret; or

d.
before a material change of the position of the person, knew
or had reason to know that-

i. the
trade secret was a trade secret; and ii. knowledge of the
trade secret had been acquired by accident or mistake;

3. with
the the term “improper means”-

a.
including theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or
inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or
espionage through electronic or other means; and b. not
including reverse engineering, independent derivation, or any
other lawful means of acquisition d. Whether it is proper for
the Court to enter an injunction preventing future use of the
claimed trade secrets;

e.
Whether it is proper to the Court to condition future use of
the trade secret upon payment of a reasonable royalty for no
longer than the period of time for which such use could have
been prohibited;

f.
Whether it is proper for damages to be awarded in the amount
of a reasonably royalty in the amount of $1.25 million to
$2.50 million as set out more fully in the expert reports of
Andy Carter;

g.
Whether the trade secrets were misappropriated willfully and
maliciously, and if so, the amount of exemplary damages and
attorneys' fees to be awarded under the statute;

h.
Whether an act in furtherance of misappropriation was done in
the United States if there was misappropriation by Defendants
outside the United States.

13.
Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief restraining and enjoining Defendants, and
each of their officers, agents, servants, employees, and
attorneys, and those persons in active concert or
participation with any of them and having notice of this
action from acquiring, using, or disclosing Plaintiffs'
trade secrets, or confidential information, now or in the
future.

14.
Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief requiring Defendants and each of their
officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and
those persons in active concert or participation with any of
them and having notice of this action: to deliver to
Plaintiffs or this Court all property, documents, materials,
or other things in Defendants' possession which embody,
contain, or reference Plaintiffs' trade secrets, or
confidential information, including but not limited to any
information generated by use or reference to Plaintiffs'
trade secrets, or confidential information; and to cause to
be assigned to Plaintiffs all patents and patent
applications, and rights in the Inventions disclosed therein,
derived from Plaintiffs' trade secrets or confidential
information, and/or from Inventions conceived by Defendant
individuals while an employee of Plaintiffs and their
predecessors-in-interest, Crop Ventures and Salus Novus.

15.
Whether a constructive trust should be imposed in favor of
Plaintiffs and against the Defendants' in the amount of
the overall profits received by Defendants from their
distribution or sale of products containing features based on
or derived from Plaintiffs' trade secrets, confidential
information or other intellectual property.

16.
Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to an order declaring at
least the following: That Plaintiffs are the rightful owners
of the entire right, title and interest in the Farmobile
Canadian Patent No. CA 2888742C (the “Canadian
Patent”) at issue and the allowed U.S. Non-Provisional
Patent Application No. 14/434, 621 published as U.S. Patent
Publication No. 2015/0234767A1 (the “allowed U.S.
patent application”) that Farmobile abandoned that is
at issue (and all parent patent applications thereof and all
patent applications or issued patents claiming priority
thereto including International Patent Application No.
PCT/US2014/056818 (the “PCT Application”) at
issue and the U.S. Provisional Patent Application Nos.
61/881, 320 and 61/881, 326 (the “Provisional Patent
Applications”) filed by Farmobile in September 2013.

Plaintiffs'
Statement of Issues: Defendants' Affirmative
Defenses

1.
Whether Plaintiffs are estopped from asserting their claims
because of the equitable doctrines of laches, estoppel,
unclean hands, and/or waiver.

2.
Whether Plaintiffs claims are barred by an alleged failure to
mitigate damages, or whether Defendants are entitled to a
setoff or credit based on alleged failure to mitigate that
would otherwise allegedly result in unjust enrichment.

3.
Whether Plaintiffs acted in bad faith by bringing their claim
under the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, and if so, the
effect of any such finding.

4.
Whether Plaintiffs' contract claims are barred by the
doctrine of privity of contract.

5.
Whether the statute of frauds bars Plaintiffs' implied or
express oral contract claims. The effect of Defendants'
failure to specify any basis for the statute of frauds to
apply.

6.
Whether Plaintiffs can prove recoverable injury or damages.

7.
Whether Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrines of
Justification, Consent, or Ratification.

8.
Whether Plaintiffs' contract claims are barred by an
alleged failure or inadequacy of consideration, whether
inadequacy of consideration is a recognizable defense, and
whether Plaintiffs' contract claims are barred by an
alleged failure to include essential contract terms.

9.
Whether Plaintiffs materially breached the terms of any
enforceable agreement(s) with Defendants, and if so, the
effect of that breach.

10.
Whether Plaintiffs made fraudulent misrepresentations or
fraudulently concealed any facts that induced Individual
Defendants to enter into any enforceable agreement, and if
so, whether the facts were material and relied upon. If so,
whether that is a legal defense to any of Plaintiffs'
claims.

11.
Whether recovery on Plaintiffs' contract claims would
contravene public policy and would constitute an unreasonable
restraint of trade.

13.
Whether any of Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the
applicable statute of limitations based on Plaintiffs'
knowledge of Defendants' conduct and failure to file a
claim within the applicable statute of limitations period. If
so, the effect of Defendants' failure to specify the
applicable statute of limitations.

Plaintiffs
Statement Of Issues: Defendants' Counterclaims.

I.
Breach of Contract (Jason Tatge)

a. Whether Crop Ventures, Inc., Plaintiffs' predecessor
in interest, breached its contract with Tatge by allegedly
failing to comply with the terms of the Letter Agreement;

b. Whether there was a meeting of the minds as to all terms
upon which Defendant attempts to base recovery;

c. Whether Tatge complied with his obligations under the
contract or breached them in a way that bars recovery;

e. If so, whether Defendant has admissible proof of the
nature and extent of damages.

II. Unjust Enrichment (Jason Tatge)

a. Whether there is a claim for unjust enrichment for a
subject matter that is not covered by an express contract and
outside the scope of his employment;

b. If so, whether Plaintiffs have been unjustly enriched by
their alleged receipt of a benefit from Individual Defendant
Tatge when in justice and fairness Plaintiffs allegedly ought
to pay Tatge for such benefit;

b. Whether Crop Ventures expected or reasonably should have
expected the promise to induce ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.